Saturday, July 05, 2008

Positive signs in a dangerous path

July 5, 2008


Positive signs in a dangerous path


IRAN'S response to proposals by Western powers to end the nuclear stand-off has come at a time when speculation is high that the US and Israel are steadily moving towards launching military action against that country.
We do not know yet how exactly Tehran has responded to the Western proposals, but its top nuclear negotiator, Saeed Jalili, has called the Iranian response "a constructive and creative view and a focus on common ground."
According to Western diplomats, the Western proposals, sent to Tehran by the European Union's top diplomat Javier Solana last month, would have Iran freeze its current level of enrichment capacity for a certain time period during which the European Union would refrain from floating new sanctions.
Iran could not install any new centrifuges used in enrichment, a step that can produce weapons-grade fuel, for the interim period.
We have yet to hear any Iranian official hinting that Tehran is ready to give ground on the key question of enrichment, but it is possible that Tehran might be amenable to the idea of freezing its nuclear enrichment programme at its current level.
On the other hand, notwithstanding the US endorsement of the compromise proposals given to Iran, it is difficult to swallow the argument that the Bush administration is ready to deal with the Iranian regime if it accepts the compromise.
In fact, there are only two constants in the US-Iran nuclear stand-off: The first is Tehran's insistence that it would never make any compromise over its right to develop nuclear energy as a signatory to the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) , and this includes nuclear enrichment. The second is the combined US-Israeli determination for military action leading to regime change in Tehran regardless of whether Iran is trying to build nuclear weapons. One would even wager that the US and Israel are hoping that the Iranians would not accept any compromise and thus would offer "justification' for military action against the country. That was indeed the case when the US was dealing with Saddam Hussein and it was clear that there was nothing the late Iraqi leader could have done to avert the US-led invasion of occupation of his country in 2003.
No doubt, the Iranians are aware of the certainty of the US-Israeli intentions and hence their tough talk and repeated warnings that any military action against Iran would be considered an act of war that would draw predictable (and unpredictable) retaliation.
At the same time, Iranian political leaders are sending signals that they are ready for diplomacy to end the dispute.
The foreign policy adviser to supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, Ali Akbar Velayati, has said it would be in Iran's interest to accept negotiations as the means to resolve the conflict while Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki has spoken of a "new process."
Everyone in the Middle East and beyond is aware of the consequences of yet another military conflict in this region and is anxious to avert it. Let us hope that the new signals coming from Tehran are the forerunners of a diplomatic solution that would spare the region from further conflict, bloodshed and upheavals.